Pay scale rectification orders operate in rem and apply equally to all similarly situated employees.

The applicant joined the Department of Revenue as an Inspector in 1982 and retired as an Assistant Commissioner in 2016

Following the implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) effective 01.01.1996, the pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents were initially fixed at Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500 respectively

Due to an acknowledged anomaly, the Union Government upgraded these scales to Rs. 6500-10500 and Rs. 7500-12000 via a Ministry of Finance OM dated 21.04.2004

However, this benefit was granted prospectively from the date of the OM rather than from 01.01.1996.

The applicant submitted a representation in 2025 seeking retrospective notional fixation from 01.01.1996 based on favorable judgments from various High Courts and the Supreme Court

The respondents rejected this representation on 12.08.2025, prompting the current Original Application (OA)

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of revised pay scales notionally from 01.01.1996 and on an actual basis from 21.04.2004

2. Whether the claim is barred by limitation and whether the applicant is a "fence-sitter" precluded from seeking relief due to delay

3. Whether the previous judicial pronouncements on this subject are judgments in rem or in personam

The Tribunal applied the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India regarding parity and the doctrine of equal treatment for similarly situated employees

It relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, which establishes that service jurisprudence requires uniform treatment of similarly situated persons regardless of who approached the court first

The Tribunal also considered Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding limitation

it balanced it against the principle in K.L. Shephard v. Union of India, which states there is no justification to penalize employees for not having litigated earlier if they are entitled to the same benefits as petitioners

Furthermore, it followed the precedent set by the Hyderabad Bench in OA 1089/2019, affirmed by the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court, which granted notional fixation from 01.01.1996

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that the claim was stale or barred by limitation. It reasoned that pay fixation constitutes a recurring cause of action

Citing the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal noted that once the government accepts a Pay Commission recommendation and multiple courts affirm the right to retrospective notional fixation, the department should extend benefits to all similarly placed employees without forcing each individual to litigate

The Tribunal observed that a Special Anomaly Committee had already recommended these benefits for CBDT employees; since CBIC and CBDT both operate under the Department of Revenue, denying the same to CBIC employees was discriminatory

The Tribunal further held that the previous judgments were judgments in rem because they addressed a general pay anomaly affecting an entire class of employees, making the "fence-sitter" argument inapplicable

It held that the applicant is entitled to the upgraded pay scales on a notional basis from 01.01.1996 and on an actual monetary basis from 21.04.2004

The respondents were directed to refix the applicant's pay under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, and calculate all consequential benefits, including pensionary arrears, within two months of receiving the order

No costs were awarded